BUK SAM system Thread

George1 wrote:

Hole wrote:It´s the same with Derivatsia-PVO (the 57mm AAA tank)

Νο. Τaifun-PVO designed to transport Igla MANPADS. It is clear on video

The designation. PVO.

Isos wrote:Too bad they didn't install a small radar or some powerfull optics for surveillance on the top with at least 10km range.

I´m sure it has one of these

Yes they do have one but it's not vehicle mounted. However the good thing about this one is that it's impossible to spot from drones and the antenna can be away from the processing unit which means an anti radiation missiles will destroy only the antenna and the replacement can be quick and cheap.

An EO ball on the vehicle would also increase the early warning and act passively.

Νο. Τaifun-PVO designed to transport Igla MANPADS. It is clear on video

He means the PVO indicates it is an air defence version but that it being an Army vehicle it is in service with the Russian Army rather than the Aerospace Defence forces as one would expect when they see something labeled PVO>.

Too bad they didn't install a small radar or some powerfull optics for surveillance on the top with at least 10km range.

The vehicle would not operate on its own and would be part of the Barnaul IADS which would have command vehicles and sensor vehicles and work on collective information provided by a range of vehicles and sensors and units.

Based on higher echelon forces such a vehicle might deploy to an expected route to be taken by enemy incoming land attack cruise missiles... ie deployed on the other side of a low row of hills that enemy forces might use to sneak up on strategic targets... by positioning on te other side of those hills however these MANPADS would be able to engage and destroy the missiles in flight... if you had radars there then the cruise missiles would likely be routed around them instead...

OMG i replied at wrong thread.

apologize

A key event in the sky over the Astrakhan region. Full-scale tests of 9M317MA have confirmed the unique feature of domestic air defense systems

Undoubtedly, one of the most indicative and important for expert analysis of the episodes of the recent exercises of the mixed anti-aircraft missile brigade of the air defense forces of the Russian ground forces at the Kapustin Yar training ground is the successful interception of one of the four types of small air targets of the 9F6021E Adjutant target-training complex by the 9M317MA medium-range anti-aircraft guided missile included in the ammunition load of the Buk-M3 self-propelled military air defense system. The most notable details of this interception, which provoked numerous discussions in observing circles, were: the distance to the destroyed air target, which, according to the Russian defense department, was about 40 km, as well as the operating height at the time of interception, barely reaching 10 meters (product carried out the flight in the terrain bend mode).


https://topwar.ru/176554-kljuchevoe-sobytie-v-nebe-nad-astrahanskoj-oblastju-naturnye-ispytanija-zur-9m317ma-podtverdili-unikalnuju-osobennost-otechestvennyh-zrk.html

Question:

The export version of Buk-M3 can intercept an 2/3 m² target at 65km range how far could the Buk-M3 intercept an UAV like the RQ-4B that Iran destroyed?

New complexes "Buk-M3" for the first time take up combat duty in the Central Military District until the end of the year - commander

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=543048&lang=RU

dino00 wrote:Question:

The export version of Buk-M3 can intercept an 2/3 m² target at 65km range how far could the Buk-M3 intercept an UAV like the RQ-4B that Iran destroyed?

At max range if it is connected to the IADS and shares the data from better radars.

The surveillance radar for Buk family have a 150km max range which should see such drone at great distance too.

With off platform targeting data it should be able to get the missile close enough for a lock...

But can the missile have that range against that type of targets?

dino00 wrote:But can the missile have that range against that type of targets?

Buk m3 has a 70km range. Drones are slow and easy to intercept as long as you can detect them.

Isos wrote:

dino00 wrote:But can the missile have that range against that type of targets?

Buk m3 has a 70km range. Drones are slow and easy to intercept as long as you can detect them.

70km range against fast manouvereable targets with 2m² rcs, against slow big drones should be much more, how more was my question

dino00 wrote:

Isos wrote:

dino00 wrote:But can the missile have that range against that type of targets?

Buk m3 has a 70km range. Drones are slow and easy to intercept as long as you can detect them.

70km range against fast manouvereable targets with 2m² rcs, against slow big drones should be much more, how more was my question

70km is IMO the max range after which the missile loose its usefull energy and can't manoeuvre anymore.

Against a manoeuvrble fighter they would wait till it's 50km away. For bigger aircraft or drones it will be 70km.

70km is IMO the max range after which the missile loose its usefull energy and can't manoeuvre anymore.

That is the key.... missiles move very very fast but have very small control surfaces.... if you think of the speed of a bullet... if you aim it accurately you should hit the target. In this case the bullet can manouver a few centimetres around its point of aim to compensate for movements of the target between when you fire and when the bullet hits the target... but remember the point of aim is never where you want to hit the target... it is where you think the point of aim will be when the bullet or missile gets there.

A bullet does not change direction to follow a target but a missile can to it has more leeway against a moving target which is why missiles are so much more effective than anti aircraft artillery.

The point is however that a missile is not a plane and will not engage in some sort of dogfight with the target if it is too far away from where it is supposed to be when the missile turns on its radar to look for the target.

Missiles receive course corrections in flight to change the place where it starts to look for the target so the target can perform all sorts of manouvers to evade interception, but the missile can be sent to a different place and all those manouvers will be for nothing.

The main point is that the missile is launched without a target lock so the target has no idea it is under missile attack until the high speed missile probably 10km and moving at 1km per second and possibly at 20km altitude and diving down on it suddenly turns on its radar... once it gets a lock if the target is in the centre of view and it is already heading towards it the combination of being able to turn a few degrees to shift its flight path several hundred metres in any direction plus the proximity fuse and a warhead that directs fragments at the last fraction of a second towards the target means it does not need a direct hit... even a 10m miss is like being 10m away from but directly in front of a Claymore mine.... you are dead...

Odds are they wont even see it coming and will have not time to do anything... a straight and level cruise missile target would be the same because the distance it can move in the few seconds it has is tiny... the faster the missile the less distance it can move away...

Most importantly the target does not know the capacity of the missile... it might have gotten its numbers wrong and when it started scanning it found the target way ahead of where it should be so it has to turn hard for a hit... but the target detects the radar signal and realises it is under attack and the most extreme flightpath change it can manage is a sharp pitch up and airbrake on.... ironically the sudden loss of speed means the turn it needs to hit the target has been made much easier by the manouver choice of the target and it gets a solid direct hit on the centre of mass of the target and blows it to bits.

Missiles perform a single slashing attack and cannot come around for another go... normally they are moving at very high speed but have to remain supersonic to remain in the air anyway... as they slow down the tiny control surfaces have less and less effect and even at full deflection without stalling wont turn the missile in very sharp turns.

The exception would be the grid fin equipped R-77.... if it had a ramjet or scramjet motor it would be deadly...

Wartime practice also stress two round salvos for non-cooperative targets, possibly with different guidance modes to minimize any one countermeasure having any effect to the overall engagement. Hard maneuvering might buy the victim a reprieve from the first missile, but having burned much of that initial speed he might be hard-pressed to dodge the next. Then there is that nasty new trend of introducing longer ranged SAM TELARs to medium-range SAM batteries, the 9A83M TELAR specifically. Now targets like tactical jammers that were formerly out of reach of the Buk can be handily engaged and killed even without a full S-300V4 battery present.

Latest Buk-M3 anti-aircraft missile systems go on combat alert in Siberia

https://tass.com/defense/1237777

Strange they show the BUK-M1 in the video.

Actually quite common with these sorts of upgrades where you get a brand new whole system that is still compatible with older models... the upgraded radar and sensors and equipment means better performance for older missiles as well as the new missiles... they will have more of the older missiles than the new ones so they can practise with older missiles using the newer systems and sensors and equipment and it would be interesting to see what improved performance they get from the older missiles with the new more precise radar and more accurate tracking and missile control systems... they will likely have a few old missiles getting close to expiry dates that they can loose off for experience and practise, so they can go through the process of learning to use the new systems and use up some older missiles, but they will likely have a few targets they couldn't get with the old missiles... either to small a RCS or manouvering too hard or too far away... and they can launch some new model missiles against those just to prove they work and get some experience with the new weapons... loading and handling.

That way they get lots of practise using the new systems, they use up some older missiles that have to be used up, and they get experience with the new missiles.